![]() |
The psychology of forums.
Question.... why, with so many RV based accidents with factual reports to talk about, do folks feel the need to discuss RV accidents with no or limited facts at all? When you root cause that, id suspect we would learn a lot more about ourselves than we care to admit. |
already answered
Quote:
Oh, and one other thing is missing from the NTSB reports that can be tremendously instructive: photos. With 'fresh' events come media reports that include pictures. Those pictures can be very useful for stimulating discussion, generating insights that are not in the report. (like my example above, I can often recognize a stall-spin by the orientation of the wreckage) We could try it though. Someone glean through the old stale reports, pull one out that looks instructive, post it, and lets talk about it. Lets see how much educated speculation can fill in the gaps in the report, and provide insight into the chain of events that we can all learn from. Someone? |
Quote:
On the other hand, I do see how those discussions can turn into a circus side show. That's where our moderators, who do a great job, edit and or close the thread. my 2 cents |
Is there a way?
I may take a little heat for this, but I'm used to it. I agree with the folks that say that "educated speculation' can be beneficial. Aviation and RV people are smart!..Give them some credit for understanding up front that the information is preliminary, lacks specifics, and in fact, may be completely untrue as discussed. Certainly anyone smart enough to build an airplane is not silly enough to believe everything they read on the internet..even on this blog.
About a month ago, I suggested that we begin discussing medical issues..and was promptly "taken to the woodshed"..fear of FAA snooping, release of personal information, etc..and perhaps the criticism was justified..but this I know...we NEED to find a way to discuss crashes, medicals, and the so-called dark side of our passion...because ignoring the issues will not make them go away. We simply need to find a way to do it without slipping into unnecessary personal blame and wildly unsupported speculation. Perhaps, there could be a "special" blog that requires the moderators to approve the post BEFORE it appears to the public..instead of an instant post that has to be removed later....wish I had a perfect answer..hopefully, someone who is more computer savvy than I am has a suggestion..thanks for listening. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I've a few times thought, "where is a moderator when I need one" and on a couple of occasions written a PM to a moderator suggesting that a post crossed a line. The response has been very good. In contrast to actual accident/incident discussion, look how long the threads went on discussion about 'the impossible turn' back to a runway after engine failure, and about 'overhead pattern entry'. Those were discussions that brought a lot of wisdom (on both sides of each issue). If we convert fresh incidents to hypotheticals, couldn't we do the same thing, i.e. conduct discussions that bring a lot of wisdom? |
Nothing New Under the Sun...
Guys, (and gals) I have made aviation my life, and have studied mishaps for over forty years. With incredibly few exceptions, it is incredibly difficult to find a new way to crash an airplane. It has pretty much all been done before. I don't think that have ever seen a truly novel or new accident report here or on the FAA database with regards to RV's since Doug started the site in 2005.
Why do I bring this up? There is just no need to rapidly speculate on the immediate causes of incidents here. From mechanicals (loose fittings, worn parts, fuel line contamination) to weather related incidents (VFR into IFR, bad judgement about the airplane's capabilities or the pilot's abilites) to Stupid Pilot tricks (aerobatic that end up minus six feet AGL) - it's all been done before. If you want to talk about it, talk about old stuff. Subscribe to the NASA Ames distribution list that reports the results of all those "get out of jail free" forms and start a discussion about those incidents - they are really good, and you're free to bring them up in the safety forum. There is just too much overhead about trying to speculate about the cause of a recent accident. In my old job, we had a saying - "The first answer is ALWAYS wrong". And with very few exceptions, that was true. It's easy to say that pilot's shoudl take their lumps - but based on heresay, speculation, and mis-information? Come on, let's just go get some pitch forks and torches and roast the fellow - the effect is the same. There are exceptions to the rule - if a generic "fleet" problem is uncovered that can affect everyone, asnd is truly new, I think that is imortant to uncover. But that is extremely rare. Most incidents are repeats of stuff that have been happening for years. That information is out there - if you're truly concerned about safety and learning lessons from mishaps, you'd be reading it right now. |
Quote:
In spite of what some think, the mods don't edit or delete very many posts. Mostly we just move posts to parts of the forum that are most appropriate and eliminate posting errors such as duplicates. My response was to the suggestion that we select which posts are allowed to be published. That would put the mods in a very difficult position where we would most likely make a lot of posters mad and the quality of VAF would suffer. Even though several suggestions have been made, we keep coming back to the fact Doug has created an excellent environment for civil discussions. This forum is different from most aviation forums in the quality of discourse and civility. Doug's definition of what he wants his forum to be has worked extremely well. I had some doubts at first, but it turns out he had remarkable vision. |
Quote:
Agree the investigators conducting a mishap board should be insulated from and avoid the pull to speculate beyond the supporting facts...but the truth of the matter is all mishap reports end in speculation. Some are supported by more facts than others but all have a degree (most often significant) of speculation. i've chaired too many mishap boards, lost pilots i've trained and commanded over my nearly 30 years active duty Navy and not one mishap board, with 1000's of man-hours expended exhaustingly investigating, collecting and analyzing facts ended without a degree or speculation - not one. The NTSB reports are even worse. Even if the speculation is off and unsupported, it has no way to truly harm anyone. If the NTSB is trolling VAF for information we have bigger problems. Nobody forces the folks involved in the mishap to read the posts either.. Keep the language civil and express your theory, even if it is whacked beyond belief, rest assured somebody smarter and better looking will quickly square you away! |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:44 AM. |